Posted Originally on Opinion Maker on 29. Dec, 2011 by Nadir Mir
US – NATO attack on Pakistan
By Brig Nadir Mir
US – NATO attacked a non NATO Ally Pakistan!
The attack was unprovoked, wanton, cowardly and ruthless. It was open aggression and violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. US – NATO aggression was condemned or Pakistan received support and sympathy from China, Russia, Iran, OIC (Saudi Arabia) – Turkey. Even UK expressed regrets; France supports an inquiry into the issue. Germany was obviously disappointed by Pakistan’s cancellation of participation at Bonn Conference
US filled with hubris even refused to apologize, while Delhi was gloating over the death of Pakistani Soldiers and its predicament. The Pakistani Nation is livid with rage and united to defend Pakistan. The American sanctioned attack (no other power on the planet can dare to attack Pakistan at its own) is radicalizing Pakistan. The beleaguered (mini minority) corrupt and treacherous elite in Pakistan are finding excuses to explain American aggression.
The time has come to end the Geopolitics of Confusion!
Firstly why was this aggression launched?
A long list of answers can be compiled, some are presented here:
A strategy of deflection to keep away from the ‘Memo’.
Gunship raid, attack (live) rehearsal – against Pakistan’s nuclear sites. (Helicopters at night used even earlier for ‘snatch operations’ like the Abbotabad Raid).
Daily Beast article which claims this as ‘Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine’ and terms it as ‘Off Shore Balancing’ (with money and bravado in short supply, avoid land battle. Use of heliborne/drone/air power for foreign policy ends of USA).
Condition Pakistan to stay prostrate during expected ‘war against Iran’ by Israel / US (urgency of expected strike on Persia)
Intimidate Pakistan before Bonn Conference. (Absurd but irrational Globalists can do anything)
Pakistan’s (offensive) containment. Degrade, disgrace Pakistan Army and drive a wedge in the Pakistani Nation. (The opposite effects have been achieved. The Pakistani Nation stands united and supports the Army vehemently)
Secondly who is with and against Pakistan?
With Pakistan stand its brave plus patriotic Armed Forces, and the nationalistically motivated people of Pakistan. The soldiers and masses stand together against foreign threats. Externally to varying – degrees Pakistan is supported by China – Russia – Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia – OIC. Almost the entire region is against US sponsored wars, or longevity for its military presence. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are already in a state of war with USA. Most of the world respects Pakistan (Pakistan’s nomination to Security Council seat was testament). India is of course completely untrustworthy. It can always launch ‘Cold Start’ offensive on any pretext in harmony with US MILITARY STRIKE – against Pakistan. (In December a major Indian Army Exercise is underway in the deserts against Pakistan). Still the regional Geopolitics would have to be viewed by Delhi, more than Pakistan’s offer of MFN.
Russian support can prove a game changer for Pakistan. It would tilt the scales, Russia – China and not only China supporting Pakistan. Deterring USA to an extent, while inhibiting India from joining US for an attack on Pakistan. (Besides Pakistan’s conventional forces and nuclear deterrent – tactical weapons included, could keep India at bay)
The British even as America’s most Allied Ally are not openly clashing with Pakistan. (Both due to British Policy and British vulnerability at home. More so, the fate of the British Embassy in Tehran clearly indicates an Iranian – British clash). In fact Pakistan’s relations with the British, French and Germans (major NATO members) have been good. They could even be better if NATO withdraws from Afghanistan. (There would be little to have friction on). Pakistan – German friendship should improve further. Germany is the true and future leader of Europe and respected by Pakistanis.
Now the question who is against Pakistan?
A brutally candid answer is:
Firstly, Pakistan’s own corrupt, treacherous and incompetent elite, a mini minority which wants to keep robbing and exploiting the Pakistani Nation. They seek solace and work for foreign powers (USA – India). The treacherous elite would sell the Motherland for a song. They want to serve as slave overseers for a shackled Nation. Selling it to the first bidder. Yesterday it was USA alone but now it is USA – India. This is the Pakistan Corruption – Treachery Nexus, who are more loyal to Washington – Delhi than many Americans and Indians and of course Anti Pakistan. (After all in USA, Americans are challenging the system – Occupy Wall Street, LA etc or Anna Hazara ‘Anti corruption Drive’ in India)
Secondly the cabal of America’s Globalists, military – industrial complex, left over Neo cons who still want to conquer the world. (Despite being chastened in Iraq – Afghanistan). On the contrary, the good hearted, charity giving and amiable people of America many of whom are now questioning this perpetual war quest. They seek jobs and living at home rather than wars abroad! The White House and State Department are confused in the Geopolitical labyrinth of Afghanistan.
The war lovers of course love war. They want to continue the war in Afghanistan and start new ones in Iran – Pakistan! (Not divining that the combined Geopolitical space of Afghanistan – Pakistan – Iran – Iraq will prove a Giant Black hole (even for Uncle Sam).
Thirdly, Delhi the serpent, is always bidding its time to strike Pakistan. Still the complex and multi faceted (Delhi does not want to lose Tehran / Moscow affinity) regional Geopolitics weighs heavy on Indian minds . As does the fear of nuclear holocaust from a Pakistani response.
Veteran Indian Diplomat MK Bhadrakumar had predicted a ‘Persian Response’ by Pakistan for this attack, (asymmetrical plus Strategic Defiance). Simon Tisdall warning in ‘Pakistan has had enough’ had opinioned that an Iranian type Revolution in Pakistan could be one outcome in future.
‘A hot flash in the Cold War with Pakistan’ is how the Atlantic titled its article. The only people who still think in terms of an alliance in the Global War on terror are Pakistan’s dimwitted, thieving, treacherous elite! The rest of the world is quite clear on the real issues, which are:
Pakistan’s Denuclearization (through ‘Memo of Treachery’ or American Geo strategy)
America’s partial withdrawal from Afghanistan
From the MemoGate to Gunship attack etc, are all tactics of one supreme over arching strategy to denuke Pakistan. (War hawks controlled, Indian influenced).
Washington wants to keep its ‘Strike or Nuclear Grab Option’ open against Pakistan (before or after war with Iran). For this herculean task there are three pre requisites.
Treacherous elite support within Pakistan. (Memo and related kind)
Prepositioning, maintaining secret – clandestine forces, Special Forces in Pakistan in disguise. (To act as path finders, initial strike force)
Afghanistan Bases (operations for denuking strike)
Without these three pre requisites any Strategic Denuclearization Scenario remains fiction and outside the realm of feasibility. (Any attempt against Pakistan’s nuclear sites will have catastrophic consequences any way).
Strategic logic dictates that all three pre requisites (for denuclearization attempt) be denied to foreign forces.
· The treacherous elite have to be marginalized.
· Secretly positioned clandestine foreign forces eliminated or expelled.
· Afghan Bases Denied. (Complete pull out of all foreign forces from Afghanistan has to be Pakistan’s avowed policy)
Besides Pakistan’s brave soldiers, the Nation stands united. China, Russia and Iran at the very least seek Pakistan’s strategic autonomy from NATO. EU – NATO can be divided more so with Turkish support. British are cautious, French non hostile, Germans Peace Seeking. In America, the Afghan war has divided them, even as they unite for the war against Iran.
Pakistan should lobby for:
· An immediate ceasefire in Afghanistan and Pakistan – Afghanistan border.
· The political face of Taliban for talks.
· Early resolution of Baluch problem, where Empire (US – NATO) will strike back in Pakistan. (The next front being attacked by western – Indian Geo-strategy – Charter of Freedom for Baluchistan etc)
· Complete and early withdrawal of all US – NATO forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Disagree to any stay behind NATO forces in Afghanistan).
· Moscow – Islamabad synergism can prove a game changer. Supply routes to NATO in Afghanistan should be jointly blocked by Pakistan and Russia as part of a Peace Policy.
(‘Next War – Iran’ written by this scribe for Opinion Maker has been published by Pravda Ru and Windows to Russia. A view in Moscow is that Pakistan and Russia can together choke NATO in Afghanistan!)
· Pakistan needs to muster more tangible support from China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey on Afghanistan while keeping it cool with India for the present (through diplomacy – deterrence).
The problem in Afghanistan is very simple.
The Americans lost the war, but do not want to admit it.
There is still time for them to declare victory and go home today. Tomorrow may be a different day!US – NATO attack on Pakistan
Posted on September 22, 2011 by Marivel Guzman
The Security Council Role in the world it is not of maker of war as stands since its creation, there are 5 Permanent Members with “Right” to Veto any Resolution, but we should analyze in deep why they would “Veto” any measure that will avert war, or bring stability to a region on Earth, because their Job is to Guarantee Peace and Security, not to create conflicts and wars.
If the permanent members of the Security Council will be doing their job, we would not have a single war or conflict on Earth. There is no reason to wage a war on a neighbor is the Human Rights Status are implemented for every human being, if we respect the land of others, and respect the natural resources of Earth as a vast resource to feed us and not to accumulate riches in few hands.
This is my take on all the information thrown to roll in the internet, overall it is very pessimist on the UN Bid..and I think is misleading on the roles, of the General Assembly and Security Council…Because the case for Palestine Member status fall under the direction of the General Assembly even thought that the Security Council will want to make a recommendation on the issue, does not fall in their capacity.
Security Council role is in security and peace issues, like War and Peace, or Military Interventions or Economical Sanctions, and this Issue of Palestine Seat it is a Diplomatic move and has nothing to do with resolution of a conflict in itself but granting the membership to an entity that comply with the requirement to achieve this goal, as it is Palestine full capable of self determination.
Even thought the US and the 5 permanent members want to tell the world their twisting version, they are wrong in their own roles..
If the charters are respected as were intended, this issue should go directly to the General Assembly and not at all to the Security Council, And to make the things better; any member with voting status can make a recommendation on a issue to be discussed and vote by the 193 member of the General Assembly and Today Bahrain and Kuwait made the recommendation to the General assembly to recognize Palestine as an independent state.. so, we going to keep fighting and pressing our own, legislators to get the rule straight and stop playing political games, and do their job which it is make Peace Not War, Resolve Conflict to perpetrate them, and in no way they should favor an Entity that should not be a Member because does not comply with the requirement of delimited borders Israel move the borders at will and that it is in contravention of the Rule of the own UN…
At General Assembly, Kuwait and Bahrain demand creation of Palestinian State
The leaders of Kuwait and Bahrain today at the General Assembly called for an end to Israeli occupation of Arab territories and the creation of a Palestinian State, a move they said would resolve conflict in the Middle East.
22 September 2011 – The leaders of Kuwait and Bahrain today at the General Assembly called for an end to Israeli occupation of Arab territories and the creation of a Palestinian State, a move they said would resolve conflict in the Middle East
The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security. A reform of the Security Council, including its membership is under consideration.
The Trusteeship Council was established in 1945 by the UN Charter to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories placed under the administration of 7 Member States, and ensure that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government and independence. By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or independence. Its work completed, the Council has amended its rules of procedure to meet as and where occasion may require.
The Secretariat carries out the day-to-day work of the Organization. It services the other principal organs and carries out tasks as varied as the issues dealt with by the UN: administering peacekeeping operations, surveying economic and social trends, preparing studies on human rights, among others.
Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs
The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs is a legal publication containing analytical studies of the decisions of the principal organs of the United Nations. It is a comprehensive summary of the decisions of United Nations Organs and serves to throw light on questions of application and interpretation of the UN Charter in practice.
The General Assembly is the main deliberative organ of the UN and is composed of representatives of all Member States. The work of the United Nations year-round derives largely from the mandates given by the General Assembly. A revitalization of the Assembly is under way to enhance its role, authority, effectiveness and efficiency.
Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), established by the UN Charter, is the principal organ to coordinate the economic, social and related work of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and institutions. Voting in the Council is by simple majority; each member has one vote.
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice, located at the Hague in the Netherlands, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It settles legal disputes between states and gives advisory opinions to the UN and its specialized agencies. Its Statute is an integral part of the United Nations Charter.
At General Assembly, Kuwait and Bahrain demand creation of Palestinian State
22 September 2011 – The leaders of Kuwait and Bahrain today at the General Assembly called for an end to Israeli occupation of Arab territories and the creation of a Palestinian State, a move they said would resolve conflict in the Middle East.“Six decades have passed, and the United Nations still stands incapable of finding a solution to the Palestinian Question and putting an end to the Israeli occupation of Arab territories,” said Sheikh Nasser Al Mohammad Al Ahmad Al Sabah, the Prime Minister of Kuwait, in his speech to the Assembly’s general debate in New York.
“What really evokes concern is that the international community stands as a spectator of all those Israeli practices and policies, without opposing or deterring them, despite their clear contravention and violation of the most simple rules of international law and the resolution of international legitimacy,” he said.
The Kuwaiti leader urged the international community to put pressure on Israel to withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab territories so that Palestinians can achieve their right to self-determination and establish a State with Jerusalem as its capital.
“We wish to renew our full commitment and support to the bid of the Palestinian Authority and its endeavours to obtain membership of the United Nations as an independent and full Member State.”
The King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Issa Al Khalifa, for his part told the Assembly that the creation of a Palestinian State would “end an era of bitter Arab-Israeli conflict, subject to Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories.”
The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, in his address to the general debate yesterday, hailed calls for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, saying the regions “abounded in great expectations.”
He said that Qatar has always had a clear policy on the rules governing Arab, regional and international relations, which he said was based on reconciliation and harmony among peoples and nations.
“On the other hand, we, as well as others, have been unable to turn a deaf ear or blind eye to the calls of the wounded seeking help from near and far, against an entrenched oppression,” he said.
The Sheikh also had a tête-à-tête with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, during which they exchanged views on a number of regional issues, including Libya, Iraq, the Middle East and Darfur peace processes.
Mr. Ban paid tribute to the role played by Qatar in supporting the UN’s work, stressing the country’s role in the Darfur peace process and its efforts to settle other regional issues.
Follow this link to listen to the speech of Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Al Mohammad Al Ahmad Al Sabah of Kuwait
The Importance to being Anti-Israel – The feeling of aversion to the Israeli regime and sympathy for Palestine has even reached the United States. On September 16, hundreds of Americans and Palestinians rallied in New York City in front of the United Nation Building in Manhattan and voiced their support for Palestine’s statehood bid. Among the protesters were students and even pro-Palestinian Israelis who held Palestinian flags and chanted pro-Palestinian songs.
The Arrogant voice of Imperialism – President Obama delivered an empty and arrogant sermon to the United Nations Wednesday, laced with platitudes about “peace” that were designed to mask Washington’s predatory policies. The American president received a tepid response from the assembled heads of state, foreign ministers and UN delegates. Not a single line in his speech evoked applause.
PALESTINE: Arabs Damaging The Palestinian Cause
Posted on 01. Aug, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in Palestine
Saudi regime is the most reactionary and the most backward regime in the whole region. They’re closer to the Taliban than to anything else in terms of regime and society. Saudi rulers are better advised to change their own regime rather than trying to change the regimes in other countries.
Prof Gilbert Achcar
Arabs’ ties with Israel damages the Palestinian cause: Prof Gilbert Achcar
By Kourosh Ziabari
Prof Gilbert Achcar
Prof. Gilbert Achcar is a renowned Lebanese academician, writer, socialist and anti-war activist. He left Lebanon in 1983 and taught international relations and politics at the University of Paris VII for several years. Since 2007, Achcar has been Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London. He is a frequent contributor to Le Monde Diplomatique and ZNet.
Prof. Achcar joined me in an interview to discuss the latest developments related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s attack on the Freedom Flotilla and the prospect of Israel’s occupation of West Bank and Gaza.
Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Achcar, what’s your estimation of the prospect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Gilbert Achcar: This is extremely difficult to answer because the situation of the Middle East is changing so quickly and frequently that any kind of prediction about the future is always very risky, so what I can say in reply to your question is that in the foreseeable future, there can’t be any serious and acceptable compromise leading to a peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians. The reason is that the Israeli society has been continuously shifting to the right so that more and more extreme branches of Zionism are governing Israel, and therefore it’s extremely difficult to imagine that governments like the present government of Israel would make all of the concessions that are required for a true peace with the Palestinians. There can’t be any beginning of peace actually without an end to the occupation of the territories that were occupied since 1967, the dismantlement of the separation wall which Israel has been building and the dismantlement of the settlements. These are basic conditions to which of course one should add the immediate lifting of the blockade of Gaza. So, there’s absolutely no indication at present that the Israeli government as it is, has any inclination to go in that direction.
KZ: Both of the Palestinians and the Israelis, from a religious viewpoint, claim that the land of Israel belongs to them. Both of them cite the historical evidences and religious implications in this regard. What’s your idea about that? How should this interminable conflict come to an end?
GA: This should be hardly debatable among serious people because it’s absolutely clear that when the United Nations voted on the partition of Palestine and voted on creating a Jewish state on Palestine which was the goal of the Zionists, it gave 56 percent of the land of Palestine to the Jewish population which constituted only one third of the whole population. Moreover, the majority of this one third were immigrants, the overwhelming majority of whom had been in Palestine less than 15 years, so there is no fair standard on earth by which this kind of resolution could be considered as legitimate and just; it was completely unjust and completely unfair. No people on earth would admit that recently arrived immigrants have a right to establish their own state in their country. However, I believe that a just solution to the problem is one that would not involve any new expulsion of population; it should be a solution based on democratic principles and peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Christians and Jews, Arabs and Israelis in the region. But, for this to happen, the very nature of Israel’s relationship with its environment should change whereas what we’re seeing now is more and more violence, barbarity and cruelty on the part of Israel.
KZ: Israelis believe and claim that they should have a state with its borders spanned from Nile to Euphrates. This is the “Promised Land” which they recurrently refer to. What do you think about that? Is it a reasonable and justifiable claim?
GA: Even in Israel, very few people subscribe to this view. Only some extremist branches of Zionism believe in this idea. It sounds so absurd that only crazy people can uphold such perspectives. Now, if we had to redraw the map of the world to go back to how the world was 2,000 years ago, we can imagine what a terrible mess would happen in the whole world. Besides, there’s much debate even on the fact that the European Jews who came to Palestine in the 20th century are descendants of the Jews who were in Palestine 2,000 years ago. But even if that were the case, and again, if we had to redraw the map of the world as it was 2,000 years ago, why not 3,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago? So the only legitimate claim to a land is that of the people who were living on it in recent centuries. But no Palestinian group among the main Palestinian forces is calling for the expulsion of Jews and Israelis from the Middle East. All of them call for coexistence, but coexistence based on democratic principles and on equal footing, not the present situation of very harsh oppression of the Palestinians and the Lebanese by Israel.
KZ: Some Arab nations are progressively taking steps to normalize their ties with Israel. We can name the United Arab Emirates which invited the Israel’s transport and infrastructure minister to an international summit held in Abu Dhabi. Other Arab states, in turn, are making efforts to establish new relations with Israel. Isn’t it going to be harmful and destructive for the cause of Palestinian people?
GA: Four countries have established relations with Israel among the Arab states and they are Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Oman. This is damaging for the cause of the Palestinians, especially when the country betraying them is Egypt which is the largest Arab country. This is a result of the increasing hegemony of the United States over the Middle East, which pushes the Arab governments to establish relations with the state of Israel against the will of their own people. If you look at Jordan and Egypt, you’ll see that the overwhelming majority of their population is opposed to Israel and its policies, and this creates a wide gap between governmental policies and what the population wants.
KZ: What’s your view regarding the recent Israeli assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla? What would happen if another country rather than Israel, say Iran, had attacked the flotilla of 600 international peace activists? Would the international community’s response have been the same?
GA: You should ask me what would happen if the United States had attacked the flotilla, because they do such things quite often. But, you’re right in saying that Israel gets the least protest in comparison with other countries when it comes to the violation of international law and perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This judgment is in line with the reports of Judge Richard Goldstone who is a devout Jew and even a devout Zionist, but honest enough for acknowledging the fact that Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. So of course Israel gets much less condemnation than any countries that are opposed to the United States and to Western hegemony. One should say, however, that Israel started to lose even the support of Western public opinion recently, especially since the Gaza war of 2008-2009 which was a brutal and cruel attack on defenseless civilians and was criticized even by traditional friends of Israel. After the attack on Freedom Flotilla, the international condemnation of Israel reached an unprecedented level. A few countries cut their diplomatic relations with Israel in Latin America like Venezuela and Bolivia in the last year and Nicaragua in the current year. A number of countries recalled their ambassadors: we have seen a shift in the stance of public opinion and even a wave of protests has taken shape in the United States. So there’s been a real impact and this shows that the Israeli state by its cruelty and brutality is losing more and more ground in the global public opinion.
KZ: The Saudi King has recently made remarks in which he likened Iran’s government to the state of Israel and said that these two countries don’t deserve to exist. Is this a fair and rational statement? Doesn’t it damage the Islamic solidarity and integrity?
GA: First of all, this statement, if true, is a really infamous statement. Putting Iran and Israel on the same level is totally absurd. Israel is a state that has been created through a colonial process and is violently oppressing the original population of the land it seized. Iran is a country which has been there for a long period of history and there was no involvement of colonial powers in its creation. Its government is certainly more legitimate than that of the Saudi kingdom, which was established by armed conquest less than one century ago, and never elected since then. However, the Saudi King meant probably that both the Israeli government and the Iranian government are extremist to his taste. The truth is that the Saudi regime is the most reactionary and the most backward regime in the whole region. They’re closer to the Taliban than to anything else in terms of regime and society. Saudi rulers are better advised to change their own regime rather than trying to change the regimes in other countries.
Kourosh Ziabari is Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and the author of Book 7+1. He is a contributing writer for websites and magazines in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. . Currently, he works for the Foreign Policy Journal as a media correspondent. He is a member of Tlaxcala Translators Network for Linguistic Diversity and World Student Community for Sustainable Development. Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. He has interviewed political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky, member of New Zealand parliament Keith Locke, Australian politician Ian Cohen, member of German Parliament Ruprecht Polenz, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Peter D. Feaver, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry Kurt Wüthrich, Nobel Prize laureate in biology Robin Warren, famous German political prisoner Ernst Zündel, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, American author Stephen Kinzer, syndicated journalist Eric Margolis, former assistant of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud and the former President of the American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Sid Ganis.
K Ziabari contribute regularly to Opinion Maker